Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor welcomes the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill because we have been waiting for it for more than three years. In 2013 the Australian Labor government took a leading role in negotiating the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled. It is a long title for a very important international agreement. What the Marrakesh Treaty does is to allow disabled people access to printed copyright material, such as books, without express permission from the rights holder. It allows works to be translated into a format, such as braille, that is accessible to people with a vision or print disability, without the makers of those works having to fear that they are breaching copyright.

Without the Marrakesh Treaty, those with a disability have a serious constraint put on the works of literature that they are able to access. In fact, copyright restrictions currently mean that only about five per cent of books published worldwide are ever converted into formats accessible to people with vision impairment. The Marrakesh Treaty aims to end this 'book famine'. It is difficult to overstate just what a difference that will make to the lives of people with a disability all over this country and, indeed, all over the world, as other states party to the Marrakesh Treaty amend their own copyright laws.

In the United States, the Bookshare website offers nearly half a million book titles in accessible formats, such as braille, but until now Australia's existing copyright law meant that less than half that number were available. That should now change. This proposed legislation means organisations like Vision Australia can go about the task of creating books in accessible and audio formats for blind and vision-impaired people in Australia without fear of being sued.

When the treaty came into force in September last year, Vision Australia's general manager for information solutions Michael Simpson said:

Having access to quality information allows people to make decisions and choices in life. The lack of information in accessible formats puts people with print disability at a huge disadvantage with their sighted peers. With more available content the playing field for this community can start to be levelled.

I am one of many avid readers in this place. Books are very important to me, and I can only imagine what it would feel like to lose one's sight and, with it, to lose access to the learning and enjoyment that books provide. It is right that we do everything possible to increase access to books for people with print disability. I am very proud of Labor's role in driving this treaty and the reforms that this treaty brings with it.

I am equally disappointed—and frankly dumbfounded—that it has taken so long for the government to make the necessary changes in law that are required in order to be in compliance with the treaty. Regrettably, everything this government has done in relation to the Marrakesh Treaty has been at the last minute or delayed. Under pressure from Labor, the Liberal government finally signed the treaty on 24 June 2014, only just before the one-year deadline for signing expired. The government finally ratified the treaty in December 2015. The treaty entered into force on 30 September 2016.

It has taken the government until now, nearly six months later, to make the necessary legislative changes. That delay has resulted in a significant amount of uncertainty for the disability sector, which has been left unsure where they stand in terms of breaches of copyright law. Nevertheless, we are very glad the government has finally moved in the right direction. It is particularly welcome that the government has recognised the urgency in making these bipartisan changes and has hived them off from the more controversial parts of the earlier exposure draft bill. It is right that something as important as disability access not be caught up in some of the more politically sensitive areas of copyright law.

Disability access is not the only part of this bill. The bill also covers other important changes to copyright law. These include preservation of copyright material by libraries, archives and other institutions; use of copyright material by educational institutions; and harmonisation of copyright terms for published and unpublished works. The bill creates a new, simplified exception to existing copyright laws, permitting libraries and archives to create copies of material for preservation purposes. The act currently contains several provisions dealing with the right of different institutions to make preservation copies of different types of material, which have been criticised as overly inflexible and prescriptive. While some stakeholders would prefer the proposed exception to go further, particularly by applying to collections held by bodies other than 'libraries' or 'archives', this is a sensible reform and the sector is generally pleased with the proposed amendments.

Another part of the bill updates the statutory licences the act provides for educational institutions to access copyright material. Again, these parts of the act have been regarded as overly prescriptive and inflexible. The bill streamlines and simplifies these provisions, removing surplus administrative requirements and allowing educational institutions and rights holders to deal with one another on a more flexible, commercial basis. These changes are the outcome of lengthy negotiation between the education sector and rights holders and are supported by stakeholders on both sides of the issue.

The final part of the bill harmonises rules about the term of copyright for published and unpublished work. Presently, the act does not impose a time limit on copyright in unpublished works. As a consequence, where the owner of a copyright is unknown or unable to be contacted, libraries and other institutions are unable to make use of those works or even undertake preservation work. This problem affects, for example—and there are of course thousands of documents that one could have given as examples—letters by Jane Austen and Captain Cook's diaries. Both are documents that one would think should be made more readily available. This bill, if enacted, will enable that.

Many of you listening would be shocked to learn that this inability to publish and even to undertake preservation work has been the case for decades. The change is a necessary part of Australia's ability to preserve its history, and it is surprising it has not happened before now. The bill amends the Copyright Act to implement a new general protection period of life-plus-70 years that does not differentiate between published and unpublished works. The bill similarly amends the act so that Crown copyright in unpublished work is brought in line with the 50-year period which applies to Crown copyright in published work. Transitional provisions apply to protect the interests of rights-holders. Again, these provisions represent a negotiated consensus between stakeholders and are strongly supported by the library sector.

This bill is a very welcome start to some major copyright reform. But we should be clear: this bill can only be the very start of the ambitious modernisation of the Copyright Act that the government promised at the start of the last term of the parliament. Soon after Senator Brandis became the minister responsible for copyright after the 2013 election, he announced that he would achieve nothing less than a re-write of the Copyright Act in response to the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry that the Labor government had commissioned. Senator Brandis promised at that time 'a thorough and exhaustive exercise in law reform' which would leave the Copyright Act 'shorter, simpler and easier to use and understand'. Yet it has taken till the second term of this government—well after Senator Brandis was relieved of his responsibility for copyright—for this bill to appear. And, as for that ALRC report? After almost three years, the government is yet to even respond.

Australian artists, Australian industry and Australian consumers are right to be disappointed with the performance of this government in copyright law reform. Labor supports this bill, but it must not be the last word on copyright reform from this government. I commend the bill.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the passage of this piece of legislation, the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017, and to congratulate all parties—I stress 'all parties'—that have been involved in getting it to this point. As the digital age continues to revolutionise the way we work, communicate and engage with information, it is of course incredibly important that Australia's laws are made fit for the 21st century and to make sure they are not only reflective and fit for the 21st century for some people but also reflective and fit for all people.

Ensuring that resources are available for people, regardless of their disability, is important to the spirit and health of our nation and in making sure that the unrealised potential of every individual, whatever their circumstances, can be brought to life. Online resources have made material and services more accessible than ever for the general population, and it is crucial that the abundance and knowledge available to us is made accessible to all Australians regardless of their disability or any impairment.

Copyright law—for which I have always been a strong advocate—is an important matter to get right. Copyright is central to making sure that artistic creators and authors are able to be remunerated for their achievements and their creations. Nobody should ever be under any illusion about the important role that it plays in helping support our artists and the avenues that they need. Content creators need to have their creative effects and economic rights properly respected, particularly through the form of the exclusive right of copyright.

But of equal importance is ensuring that our copyright laws are flexible and contemporary and reflect the needs and demands of the modern age, particularly in the digital world, and ensuring that content is able to be used by people with a disability and people who need extra support within our community. Copyright is, has been and always will be a vehicle and a mechanism to distribute content, not an inhibitor or a barrier. That is what this bill seeks to implement.

This bill will enhance access to copyrighted material through a number of amendments. It will help bring the education, libraries and archive sectors of Australia firmly into the digital age. As part of this, the bill will harmonise the preservation exceptions for copyrighted material in libraries, archives and key cultural institutions. The former speaker was talking particularly about the importance of bringing to life the value and the cultural contribution of this country for all Australians, and on that I concur with him. The bill will also allow copyrighted material to be incorporated into educational assessments that are conducted online and set new standard terms of protection for published and unpublished materials and for Crown copyright in original materials.

The implications of this amendment and these seemingly simple changes are substantial. Most published material that is available worldwide is not presently accessible to people who are blind, who are visually impaired or who have a disability that affects the way a person reads, views, hears or comprehends copyrighted works. The bill's disability access provisions will put in place an amalgamated, flexible exception that organisations can then utilise to allow people with a disability to access said material. We owe it to the disability community and to people who suffer from problems around particularly blindness to ensure that Australia has the most flexible copyright framework that is available and possible. And if you think about which countries in the world are able to do that and to make content not just available but accessible to people regardless of any affliction or disability, it is us. That is why we are a leader. We will continue to be a leader, and we should be a leader.

The measures in this bill are format neutral, meaning that Australians with a print disability will also benefit alongside technological advancements and innovations today and into the future. The library and archive exceptions will allow libraries and institutions to archive with greater flexibility. Currently there are obsolete restrictions that prevent copies of published material being made unless the original has suffered damage, has deteriorated, or is lost or stolen. This bill will remove these regulations and empower libraries and institutions to make content as accessible as possible. Red tape will also be stripped away in the education sector, because the bill seeks to streamline the educational statutory licensing provisions for the copying and communication of works and broadcasts for educational purposes and permit the use of copyrighted material for online examinations.

The reforms will also refine existing provisions relating to educational use of content in order to assist educators in licensing arrangements and negotiations for access to works. This will allow educational institutions to take advantage of technology and expand the ways students can engage with content and examination material. More importantly, it is not just a legislative change but one that has a human consequence, because it expands the opportunity to engage young Australians regardless of their circumstances so that their minds can be broadened and they can be taken to other places, where they can learn and grow.

At the heart of this legislation is a desire to free our institutions so that they may harness the technology of the 21st century and help our young people, our old people and our people with disabilities. Vision Australia estimates that there are currently 357,000 people in Australia who are blind or have low vision. It projects that this number could grow to 564,000 by the year 2030, which only reinforces why these sorts of sensible, pragmatic, human-impact reforms are so essential. People aged between 15 and 64 years with disability have a lower participation rate and almost double the unemployment rate of those without disability. We all have an obligation to ensure that people with a disability are given equitable access to educational resources wherever possible.

In the digital age there is simply no reason we should not be doing more to give people with disability the best chance and opportunity to live their full human potential. We are committed to ensuring that outdated legislation is never in the way of an individual's pursuits, particularly those whose participation is already low. As a just society we have an obligation to make sure that nobody is left behind because of circumstances beyond their control. This bill is a reflection of the work of multiple parties who have come together at different points to seek pragmatic reform. For all those involved, I finish where I started, which is to congratulate them on their achievement, and I am proud that the Turnbull government is implementing this change.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017, which contains a range of reforms to several areas of copyright law. There are a couple of aspects of the legislation that I would like to speak about. The first is about making books accessible to visually impaired people. Now, obviously I have my own visual impairment, but I am lucky: I can take off my glasses. I may not be able to see the members opposite without my glasses—that can be quite a bonus!—but I would be able to read a book that was in front of me. So, whether it is a hard copy or a Kindle, I have never been denied access to the latest novel or political tome. But that is not the case for many people, whose visual impairment means they do not get a rush from walking into a bookshop that I do.

This bill, which implements Australia's obligations under the Marrakesh treaty, helps change things. In June 2013, the Marrakesh Treaty was adopted. It is part of the body of international copyright treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization. The treaty's main goal was to create a set of mandatory limitations and exceptions for the benefit of the blind, visually impaired and otherwise print-disabled. Let us keep in mind that the announcement of the new treaty was nearly four years ago and it was the first of its kind in the history of the multilateral copyright system. Australia played a key role, and I remember reading about it then, when then Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus expressed his pride in the role Australia had played in the negotiations, working hard to find a balance between the rights holders and the visually impaired. The negotiators also had to work hard to find a balance between the needs of the developed world and the developing world.

The treaty allows signatory countries to make exceptions from copyright laws to enable the creation of accessible format copies—for example, with large print or braille or as talking books. What is more, these copies can be taken across borders. I think it helps address what has been described as a book famine, where an estimated less than five per cent of the world's published works are made into accessible formats. The treaty itself—and this legislation follows from that treaty—also contains safeguards for rights holders, including the application of a domestic commercial availability test so that the exceptions operate only where an accessible format copy is not available. This test protects the interests of authors and publishers, and we always need to think of their interests because they are only able to keep being productive thanks to the income that their copyright generates.

In August last year, former Disability Discrimination Commissioner Graeme Innes explained the problem that he and many others faced, saying he and other vision-impaired Australians could not import legally-produced audio and braille books without the specific permission of the publishers, and that was not always easy to get. Vision Australia also noted that the law was needed and called for swift passage by the new parliament. I am not sure this meets my definition of swift—it has been quite a few months, and the process, as the member for Isaacs has given detail on, has been a really tortuous journey—but it is pleasing to see that this bill has finally reached the parliament.

The bill will help many in our community access literature that was previously unavailable to them in a form they are able to use. It also contains other changes to the Copyright Act, including improving the ability of libraries, archives and other cultural institutions to preserve copyright materials. They will no longer have to wait until the item is all but destroyed or seriously compromised to be able to make copies. It will also streamline and simplify the statutory licenses available to educational institutions and allow those institutions to use copyright material in online assignments, something previously impossible under the act. I am not sure, but there may be a generation of students who are now going to thank us—or not—for this change!

There are other updates to the act in this bill that harmonise the term of copyright for certain works. There have been a whole bunch of anomalies, I have to say, around copyright. For instance, one anomaly was that a perpetual copyright was given to historic letters and other unpublished documents. That meant that organisations like the Australian War Memorial were unable to digitise them if there were no heirs left to approve the change—they needed to get permission from somebody. The same issue affects Jane Austen's letters and Captain Cook's diaries. Those unpublished letters will not be as much of an issue now, because the bill implements a new general protection period of life-plus-70 years and does not differentiate between published and unpublished works.

I note that many of these provisions are the result of a negotiated consensus between stakeholders and are strongly supported by the library sector, so it is great to see and I hope that we see its passage move smoothly. But I do want to make mention, just in closing, that the draft of this bill contained an extension of the current safe-harbour protections, changing it from carriage service providers to service providers. I note that this has been removed. I have no doubt that that will be a debate we have at a later date.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in support of the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017. As the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, I have a particular interest in this bill because it introduces a range of amendments that will: (1) streamline and simplify the existing copyright exceptions and limitations for the use of copyright material by the disability sector; (2) simplify the preservation exceptions for copyright material in libraries, archives and key cultural institutions; and (3) consolidate and modernise the statutory licences that allow educational institutions to use and pay licence fees for works and broadcasts, and introduce new standard copyright terms for published and unpublished works and for Crown copyright in original works.

To enhance access to copyright material for persons with a disability, this bill replaces the current exception and statutory licence schemes for disability access in the Copyright Act with two new simplified and more flexible exceptions. The 'fair dealing' exception allows persons with a disability or those assisting them to make accessible copies of material, similar to the previous exception for persons with a disability but expressed in the more familiar 'fair dealing' language. The new exception for organisations will permit educational institutions and not-for-profit organisations to make accessible-format copies for people with a disability where the material cannot be obtained in that format within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.

The National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 provides a 10-year national policy framework, representing a shared national approach to improving the lives of Australians with disability, their families and their carers. We must not forget that there are 4.6 million Australians who identify as living with a disability. The strategy is based on the belief that all Australians should have fair and equal access to the full range of mainstream programs and services available, whether it is employment, healthcare, education, transport, housing, public facilities and infrastructure or, in this case, copyright material. The strategy's second implementation plan, Driving Action 2015-18, was released in December 2016 and outlines the government's continued commitment to driving improvements across the strategy's six policy areas.

The six policy areas are, firstly, inclusive and accessible communities—this refers to the physical environment, including public transport, parks, buildings and housing; digital information and communications technologies; and civic life, including social, sporting, recreational and cultural life. Secondly, rights protection, justice and legislation—this refers to statutory protections such as antidiscrimination measures, complaints, mechanisms, advocacy, and the electoral and justice systems. Thirdly, economic security— jobs, business opportunities, financial independence, adequate income support for those not able to work, and housing. Fourthly, personal and community support—inclusion and participation in the community, people centred care and support provided by specialist disability services and mainstream services, informal care and support. Fifthly, learning and skills—early childhood education and care, schools, further education, vocational education, transition from education to employment, lifelong learning. Sixthly, health and wellbeing—health services, health promotion and the interaction between health and disability systems, wellbeing and enjoyment of life.

In September 2016 the Council of Australian Governments Disability Reform Council agreed to reinvigorate all governments' efforts to drive progress under the strategy. Examples of the achievements that have been made across the strategy's key policy outcome areas include improvements to the Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards. The premises standards came into effect in May 2011 and coincided with changes to the Building Code of Australia, resulting in an improvement to the accessibility of public buildings. The standards were reviewed in 2016, with a government response expected in the near future. There have also been improvements to the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002. The transport standards have resulted in considerable improvements in Australia's public transport network. Work is currently underway to modernise the standards and develop a whole-of-journey guide. Further, there have been improvements to television captioning. The Australian government introduced the Broadcasting Services (Television Captioning) Standard 2013 for all television broadcasters.

We are considering a range of improvements to the Disability Standards for Education 2005. The More Support for Students with Disabilities initiative invested $300 million from 2012 to 2014 and included professional development for school staff, more effective use of allied health professions in schools, and resources to support differentiation of curriculum. We are implementing a nationally consistent collection of data on school students with disability. The National Arts and Disability Strategy encourages improved participation and access to the arts for people with disability in terms of physical access, access to funding and opportunities for people with disability to present their work. All jurisdictions have moved to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2 under the Web Accessibility National Transition Strategy. The Australian government has also developed national inclusive playground design guidelines for accessible playgrounds, and last Friday I was pleased to visit the electorate of Gilmore, where a great organisation, the Bay Push, has built a fabulous accessible playground.    Mainstream Australian government agencies have adopted protocols for engaging with people with disability, and their representative organisations, in the development of policies and programs. This government is reforming disability employment to improve participant choice and control over the services they receive, create more competition between providers, and encourage more employers to hire people with disability and assist them in the workplace.

I should also mention JobAccess. JobAccess is the national hub for workplace and employment information. The JobAccess site has undergone a major redevelopment and was re-launched on 1 July 2016. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognise the JobAccess program. In February this year it won an international award for innovative policy at the Zero Project Conference at the United Nations, in Vienna. Of course, there is the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The national rollout also represents a significant achievement under the strategy. The coalition government is fully committed to fully funding the NDIS.

While I could continue to list the achievements that have been made under the National Disability Strategy, I acknowledged there is still more to be done. This bill will help to make that happen. This bill will contribute to ensuring that people with disability live in accessible and well-designed communities with the opportunity for full inclusion in social, economic, sporting and cultural aspects. I look forward to seeing the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Act added to this list of achievements.

Other measures contained in this bill just make sense, for all people. This bill replaces the current outdated preservation copying provisions in the Copyright Act with simpler, uniform and technology-neutral provisions that give libraries, archives and key cultural institutions greater flexibility in copying and the digitisation of copyright material to preserve or administer their collections. Libraries and archives will no longer have to wait for published material to be damaged or to deteriorate, or be lost or stolen, before making a preservation copy, ensuring that valuable historic and cultural materials will be available for future generations. Digital preservation and research copies will be able to be made available to people at libraries, archives and key cultural institutions, provided reasonable steps are taken by the institution to ensure that copyright the material is not infringed. I know these provisions are welcomed by the many Brisbane City Council libraries in my electorate including Mitchelton, Toowong, Indooroopilly and Kenmore.

It would be remiss of me, as the federal member for Ryan, with one of the best universities in the world—and I am talking about the University of Queensland, at St Lucia—not to note the support from Universities Australia for this bill. Universities Australia urges the parliament to pass the bill to streamline copyright for educational institutions without affecting the interests of copyright holders. The bill will update and simplify the licences that allow universities to use copyright material in return for payments to rights holders. The bill consolidates and simplifies the existing statutory licences in parts 5A and 5B of the Copyright Act that allow educational institutions to copy and communicate works and broadcasts, in a new educational statutory licence. By removing the prescriptive and administratively burdensome record-keeping requirements of the existing licences, educational institutions and copyright collecting societies will have the flexibility to agree on their own licensing arrangements for the use of copyright material. These amendments have been developed following a collaborative initiative of, and in close consultation with, all relevant stakeholders.

This measure makes long overdue changes to the duration of copyright protection in unpublished copyright materials. Currently, if copyright materials are unpublished they remain in copyright in perpetuity, so their productive uses may be lost. This bill simplifies and harmonises copyright terms by creating new standard terms of protection for original published and unpublished works, sound recordings and films. These terms are consistent with the requirements under international conventions and agreements to which Australia is a party. The new copyright terms will commence on 1 January 2019 and will apply to copyright materials created before 1 January 2019 that remain unpublished or otherwise not made public at that date. Libraries and archives hold large numbers of unpublished materials which are an important part of Australia's cultural heritage. Setting a term of protection for unpublished materials will allow greater use of the considerable cultural value of these materials. I commend this bill to the House.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the hardest thing in your day is to support this bill then you have no problems whatsoever. There is no reason you would not support this bill; it is a great bill. In fact, there are two good reasons to support this bill. One is that my friend and colleague the shadow Attorney-General has put his heart and soul into breathing life into what is the Marrakesh treaty in the Australian context, and he deserves more than ample praise for the work he has done advocating for this. The coalition have done a great job with this bill and what it will do. I dare say they have probably gone a little bit further than we would have, but they have done a great thing for Australians who want to be able to access content, who are visually impaired or who have hurdles in their way in accessing content.

But that is it—that is the limit of my compliments for this bill. It is not what is in this bill that you should be focused on when you are looking at this debate. What you should be focused on is what is not in this bill. What is represented by the absence of key parts in this bill is policy cowardice by the Turnbull government. A few years ago when they presented the exposure draft of this bill, they said that they would include provisions for safe harbours in copyright. This is not some academic concept; this is not something that is too difficult, too arcane, too much in the policy long weeds to ignore. An inability to have an effective safe-harbour regime in this country—which was supposed to be in this bill—means that jobs are on the line. Businesses are on the line. We are looking at a government that championed itself as being the innovation government, the one that would see all these new firms sprout up, particularly in the tech space. These firms are now actively looking to go overseas because this bill—and the policy cowardice that is wrapped up in this bill—was unable to work out a way to allow those firms to continue in this country. That is the problem with this bill.

I will give you a classic example. There is a firm in Melbourne that started small and has grown big. It has provided, just in Melbourne, over 100 jobs. It has provided artists with income and it has provided manufacturers with income. For the artists, they will do better than just relying on Australia Council grants; they will actually make a quid and do very well out of it. The firm is called Redbubble, and right now their commercial prospects have been put under pressure because of the policy cowardice of this government. Just to let you know what we are turning our backs on, this is what Redbubble are: by many accounts, Redbubble are probably one of the largest global internet companies to come out of this country. They have some 15 million visitors per month and 450,000 artists have uploaded work, with over 11 million images available, and 63,000 of these artists are from this country. Ninety-three per cent of their sales are offshore from Australia. Artists have earned some $72 million from the Redbubble site, with over 10 per cent of this going to Australian artists. This is nothing to sneeze at; this is good money earned by great Australian artists through a company that emerged out of Australia from Australian smarts. That happened right here. We do not celebrate these companies enough. This is a great, great company. We should be supporting these companies. We should have legislation in this parliament that says: 'You know what? We want to make sure you survive.' But, because of the cowardice on that side—

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a nice thing to say.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I tell you what, Minister, if the shoe fits you should wear it. The Liberal government that is supposed to support entrepreneurialism is doing everything it can to not support entrepreneurialism in this country, through the failures of this bill.

In terms of the earnings of these artists, this year all artists on the Redbubble platform will earn $30 million, growing at roughly 50 per cent a year. The contribution that they are making to both global and Australian artists is greater than any single Australian organisation, including the Australia Council. Redbubble directly employ 200 people in high-paying tech jobs of the future. About 100 of them are in Australia, as I said earlier, and about 600 employees are employed indirectly via the fulfillers of advanced manufacturing. Some 60 of these firms are right here in Australia, in Horsham in Brisbane. What happened? Redbubble had an artist who developed an image that incorporated a logo of another organisation—the Hells Angels.

Mr Fletcher interjecting—

Apparently they are your friends too, Minister, because you are aiding and abetting the Hells Angels in squeezing out an Australian firm from our local environment, because you did not provide safe-harbour reform. The Hells Angels complained to Redbubble about an image used on their site, and Redbubble took it down. That normally would be the end of the story. In the US context the Hells Angels would not have a leg to stand on. But, they shopped around and realised that with some of the toughest copyright laws right here, they could sue Redbubble—even though Redbubble as a platform, as a marketplace, took the action. They have about 10 people who scour that website to make sure that copyright breaches are dealt with and dealt with quickly—but it was taken down and they could not do that. Redbubble were banking on this bill that is being debated now, where the exposure draft said that this government would deal with safe harbour reform. It has not been fixed, and now they are being sued. So firms like Redbubble, Envato and 99designs are all under legal pressure because the cowards opposite were unable to find a way to ensure this survives.

The chief executive of Redbubble, Martin Hosking, was reported in the business section of The Australian today. This is a guy who should be championed by those opposite. He is contributing massively to the income of this country, providing jobs of the future, and helping in manufacturing. He should be championed. This guy is a legend. But his business is being squeezed offshore because those opposite cannot work out how to facilitate safe harbour reform in this country within the copyright context. Martin Hosking has threatened to pull his ASX listed company out of Australia—this is insane—because the country's copyright laws are not reformed. He says that without safe harbour protections they will have to leave. Martin Hosking says:

I want to be here, and I want a modern, innovative Australia. The government is asking for innovation from corporations, but the government has to show that same level of innovation.

That is what he said. Why should a firm like this be squeezed out of the country just because those opposite cannot find a way to provide for safe harbour reform? StartupAUS, which represents companies like this, has said:

We risk losing great businesses like these—Redbubble—and stifling the growth of others, if we don't develop a strong safe harbour framework such as they have in the US, Singapore, the UK and other EU countries.

If Australia wants to transition to become a digital economy, we must catch up with the rest of the world on how we treat online copyright content.

These firms want to protect copyright. Redbubble, 99designs, Envato—these firms believe in copyright. They want to protect it. They want to protect artists' incomes. They are doing more for artists' incomes than anyone else in this country. They should not be squeezed out because of cowardice on the other side, but they are being squeezed out. We want to see the protection of copyright, the protection of artists' incomes and the protection of companies like Redbubble.

Because those opposite have not had the guts to tackle this, we are apparently being told we are going for another review, so I want to read into Hansard how many reviews there have been on this issue over the years. In February we had the Productivity Commission inquiry into intellectual property arrangements, and there was a discussion about safe harbours there. In November last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties inquiry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership also dealt with safe harbour obligations. In December of last year we had another roundtable by the Productivity Commission into IP arrangements. In December 2015 there was an exposure draft into this bill that talked about safe harbours, and there was consultation about that then. In September 2014 there was the Attorney-General's department discussion paper on online copyright infringement, and safe harbours were talked about there. In November 2011 there was an Attorney-General's department consultation paper on revising the scope of the copyright safe harbour scheme. In 2009 there was another review: Commonwealth government 'Digital economy future directions: consultation paper', and the question was posed: should the existing copyright safe harbour scheme for carriage service providers be broadened?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who was in government then?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask members to make their remarks through the chair.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am saying this has been reviewed. In July 2005, when you guys were in office, there was a review of the scope of part V division 2AA of the Copyright Act. In December 2004 there was another review by the coalition.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn't you sort it out?

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why didn't you sort it out? You have had over a decade.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are too many remarks being directed between members. All remarks are to be through the chair. This is the second time I have asked for that.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. In December 2004 there was an inquiry into copyright legislation. So what is the answer now? We are going to another inquiry—another inquiry by the so-called champions of entrepreneurism who want to be able to basically have all these reviews while Australian companies and Australian firms are completely squeezed out.

The opponents of safe harbours point out that this is all for Google. That is what they say—this is all for Google; this is for some big multinational corporation; it is not about local artists. Well, there are other big organisations like News Corp that are also supporting no move on safe harbours. They are opposed to safe harbours. I have seen News Corp rail against Google. They have written all those columns in the newspapers—I saw one in The Australian the other week—saying how bad Google is. If they do not like Google, they should get their systems administrators in News Corp to ban access to Google—stop every one of their journalists using Google. Stop them right now. If they believe that what Google is doing is wrong, they should stop using them right now. In fact, Google would not emerge in the Australian context. Why? Because our copyright laws would not allow them to. The only reason we access Google here is because of the benefit of a copyright regime on the other side of the Pacific. That is why we access Google—not because Australia allows it. If Google tried to set up service here, they would have their pants sued off them. If News Corp do not like Google, they can stop their journalists using them—stop them right now. But this is not about Google—this is about Australian firms. How is it that those opposite do not have the wit or wisdom to work out a way to help Australian firms? Google and News Corp can look after themselves. I am here talking about Redbubble, I am here talking about Envato, I am here talking about 99designs—I am here talking about Australian entrepreneurs providing artists with incomes and this country with jobs.

The failure of the Turnbull government to deliver on this shows that they are all talk on innovation but they are not there when needed. The start-up community was there for the Turnbull government. The Turnbull government has refused to be there on the big policy issues for all those companies in StartupAUS. Their national science and innovation agenda is collapsing on itself like a deflated balloon. We have never heard any of these ministers take on the ACCC as they have started to shake down start-ups and the acquisition of start-ups by bigger businesses. It is just nuts that they have not done so. They have hardly raised a peep about the ATO impacting on R&D incentives for software development while the ATO has been spooking the start-up sector. And now the safe harbour. Four failures in terms of innovation by those opposite—you have stuffed the NBN, you have stuffed up digital transformation, you have stuffed up your innovation agenda, and our firms, Australian firms, are paying for it. It is not good enough.

This bill can be supported, but the government has to be condemned for what is not in the bill.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to sum up in this debate on the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017. I want to acknowledge the cooperation of the opposition, in particular the acting shadow spokesperson for communications, the member for Isaacs, and indeed the crossbench in facilitating the passage of this legislation—as I am advised, a non-controversial bill.

Let me just take a moment to address a couple of the comments made by the member to Chifley, who focused his observations on one particular feature of the bill before the House this evening—the fact that there was, in the exposure draft of this bill, provisions dealing with a proposed safe harbour regime. Those provisions have been removed from the bill, as it stands before the House this evening. The member for Chifley has accurately identified that that is what has occurred. He has wasted no time in attributing motives to the government's decision to do that. Let me enlighten the House as to why the government has done that. It is perfectly straightforward. We have decided to take the time to conduct additional consultation and further consider feedback from stakeholders on this important issue.

I want to make it very clear that we are not talking about holding a further review or a further inquiry, as the member for Chifley sought to suggest. What we are going to do is further consider feedback from stakeholders on this issue.

Mr Husic interjecting—

This is a complicated issue. The member for Chifley chuckles to himself—

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do! You're a joke. You cannot be real.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in some kind of attempt to indicate his view of what the government has done. But I say this: when the member for Chifley was waxing lyrical at the dispatch box, did he move an amendment? He did not. He did not offer a solution. He was content to criticise. I do want to make it clear that what the government has decided to do in relation to that particular issue is take the time to further consultant, to further engage with stakeholders, to further consider their feedback and, at the same time, to proceed with the important measures in this bill.

Let me remind the House what those important measures address. The Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is an important step in modernising Australia's Copyright Act. The bill will simplify and update the provisions of the Copyright Act relating to the education, libraries and archives sectors and, also, the disability sector. It will provide greater flexibility in dealing with content in these sectors. The bill before the House this evening is an important further step in improving the workability of the Copyright Act. The provisions of the bill follow detailed consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. Many of these provisions were developed cooperatively in conjunction with stakeholders such as, for example, the changes to the educational statutory licence scheme.

I want to thank all of those who have been involved in constructively contributing to the development of the bill. This is an encouraging example of a range of different copyright stakeholders with different interests coming together to support important reforms. So this is a bill which makes a constructive and positive difference to the copyright regime in Australia and responds to the needs identified by a number of stakeholders in the education sector, the library sector, the archives sector and the disability sector. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.